- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: .22 magnum for concealment?
Posted on 1/26/17 at 2:28 pm to Clames
Posted on 1/26/17 at 2:28 pm to Clames
quote:
What's your incontrovertible evidence that .22 Mag is less effective than .380 ACP? That evidence doesn't exist for 9mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP so where do you get such an idea? Do you still think "stopping power" is something real?
Here's a LINK comparing it to 9mm and .45.
quote:
I still believe any gun is better than no gun. I also believe there are a lot of cartridges better suited for personal protection than a .22 WMR. Still, as a deterrent, it’s probably as effective as anything else. As for being able to bring about voluntary submission it’s anybody’s guess how this cartridge should be rated; we simply cannot predict psychological reactions. Where the .22 WMR appears to fall short is in its ability to bring about instant involuntary incapacitation. You’ll definitely need something that makes a bigger hole if that’s your goal.
1
Posted on 1/26/17 at 2:35 pm to Will Cover
Good luck finding ammo
Posted on 1/26/17 at 3:35 pm to Clames
quote:
What's your incontrovertible evidence that .22 Mag is less effective than .380 ACP? That evidence doesn't exist for 9mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP so where do you get such an idea? Do you still think "stopping power" is something real?
Do you carry naa 22 mag? Just curious.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 3:39 pm to UpToPar
quote:
Here's a LINK comparing it to 9mm and .45.
I've read that article before and no, it doesn't compare the effectiveness of 9mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP to each other. My point was that choosing any common handgun cartridge based on the belief that it kills or incapacitates faster than another ignores the vast complexity involving human physiology and psychology. "Instant involuntary incapacitation" is nothing no handgun round is guaranteed to do unless placed in a few small areas of the human body which is why shot placement has always trumped caliber dick waving.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 4:01 pm to Clames
Again I really hope you carry a 22
Posted on 1/26/17 at 4:07 pm to Clames
quote:
I've read that article before and no, it doesn't compare the effectiveness of 9mm, .40 S&W, or .45 ACP to each other.
I didn't say that it did. I said it compares the .22mag to the 9mm and the .45, which is does.
quote:
My point was that choosing any common handgun cartridge based on the belief that it kills or incapacitates faster than another ignores the vast complexity involving human physiology and psychology. "Instant involuntary incapacitation" is nothing no handgun round is guaranteed to do unless placed in a few small areas of the human body which is why shot placement has always trumped caliber dick waving.
Nobody is ignoring this. In fact, the article very much takes this into consideration. I clearly states that 9mm and .45 create a larger cavity and therefore are more likely to cause damage to a vital organ. You are absolutely correct, instant involuntary incapacitation requires shot placement in a few small areas, but those small areas become a little bigger when using a 9mm or .45 as opposed to a .22mag.
It's the same argument when talking deer rounds. Sure, you can kill a deer with a .223 just as dead as you can with a 7 mag with the right shot placement. It's the times that the shot placement is a little bit off when the 7mag makes the difference. It's the same concept here.
So, considering you can get a similar sized gun with similar (or better capacity) with superior ballistics, why would you not choose the gun with the better ballistics?
Posted on 1/26/17 at 4:27 pm to Timmayy
quote:
But the most popular single stack 9s i.e. Shield and glock 43 are too big for pocket carry.
I specifically said the Kahr and the Kel-Tec - this is an LCP and a Kahr CM9 side-by-side:
The Kahr and a pocket holster and you're good to go (again, JMHO).
This post was edited on 1/26/17 at 9:05 pm
Posted on 1/26/17 at 4:44 pm to Ace Midnight
My father owns the pm9 and pm40. Both are at the very peak of what could be considered pocket carryable. Far too heavy and very big. Can be carried in the pocket of nothing less than cargo shorts whereas an lcp can be carried in a back pocket of any pant like a wallet. I'm arguing this because 380 loaded with xtps reaches 12 inches of penetration out of an lcp length barrel. Is it my choice no but at the very very least of nothing else that is what I recomend
Posted on 1/26/17 at 4:46 pm to Broke
quote:
I just had to quote this for posterity.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 4:55 pm to Timmayy
quote:
My father owns the pm9 and pm40. Both are at the very peak of what could be considered pocket carryable. Far too heavy and very big.
PM9 weighs 14 ounces empty. Yeah that's more than the LCR's 9.5 ounces, but the gold standard of pocket carry before the 90s was the Centennial Airweight - which also weighed in at 12 to 14 ounces. The Kahr pocket outlines are also roughly the dimensions of a Walther PPK (if not smaller) - the old gold standard concealed carry pistol in the pre-polymer era.
The CM and PM pistols just go away in the pocket. Like I said earlier - I can foresee a very narrow range of applications where a LCP (I like Ruger, just FTR) or Kahr 380 might be the only way you can go concealed, but I'm thinking beach wear or the like, not jeans or pants where a 9mm stays an option.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 4:59 pm to Timmayy
quote:
My father owns the pm9 and pm40. Both are at the very peak of what could be considered pocket carryable.
I have several PM9s, a 9mm Shield and a G43. All fit just fine in the front pocket (in a holster) of Dockers or similar slacks (carried as a BUG, not as a primary weapon). For that matter, I can carry a G19 in a holster in the front pocket of Dockers as long as my shirttail is untucked.
If you're limited to Levis, I'd agree that the above-listed pistols are too big for pocket carry.
But I'd also mention (not argue) that the front pocket of tight Levis/jeans is a pretty constricted place to carry any primary pistol. Anyone who carries a pistol of any size in a front pocket of tight jeans already (hopefully) understands that he won't be able to quickly access the gun. And if you're in a car with your seatbelt buckled, the problem is magnified.
As you may be able to tell, I prefer to alter my wardrobe to fit my gun -- not vice versa.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 5:07 pm to SportTiger1
quote:
Do you carry naa 22 mag? Just curious.
No, did you not read my previous post stating I carry a G26?
Posted on 1/26/17 at 5:09 pm to Timmayy
quote:
Again I really hope you carry a 22
Why, do you think it will provide some needed self-validation? You'll be hoping a long, long time.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 5:30 pm to UpToPar
quote:
I didn't say that it did. I said it compares the .22mag to the 9mm and the .45, which is does.
Which has nothing to do with any point I've made so far. I could have quoted that article myself if it did.
quote:
Nobody is ignoring this.
Quite a few here are because they keep bringing up the wrong criteria.
quote:
So, considering you can get a similar sized gun with similar (or better capacity) with superior ballistics, why would you not choose the gun with the better ballistics?
Again, because this point seems to not be getting across, the number one priority in armed self-defense is stopping the threat. Not incapacitation and not killing. Balistics is not the only consideration, nor even the best of many, which is obvious from the OP (remember the OP?). It seems some of you can't get out of the obvious, low-info progression that keeps happening in these threads; if someone wants X caliber for self-defense then why not go with Y caliber because of some unsupported notion that it would be "better" based on criteria that has almost zero scientific and medical backing. I've got some of the best texts on wounding characteristics from firearms that the military has produced, none of them support some of the assumptions being made in this thread. Seriously, start researching this stuff in depth, people have been writing about armed confrontation for a long time and there is a ton of information that is too important to turn into simplistic platitudes and broadbrushed personal sentiments.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 5:54 pm to Clames
Bless your heart
Posted on 1/26/17 at 7:06 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
I specifically said the Kahr and the Kel-Tec - this is an LCR and a Kahr CM9 side-by-side:
The Kahr and a pocket holster and you're good to go (again, JMHO).
Unfortunately, my guns and pockets disagree. I've got a Kel-Tec 3-AT, KT PF9 and Kahr CM9. While the 3-AT will fit comfortably in ALLL my pockets, the CM9 and PF9 will fit only in MOST pockets. Yeah, I'll agree that the single stack 9s are great cc guns; nevertheless, I think there are circumstances when the pocket 380 trumps the single stack 9mm.
ETA: My 380 fits in my jeans pockets ok whereas the aforementioned 9mm's don't. Given the chance, I prefer to carry the 9mm over the 380, but sometimes clothing doesn't give me that option.
This post was edited on 1/26/17 at 7:11 pm
Posted on 1/26/17 at 7:06 pm to Clames
I feel like you're just being intentionally obtuse now.
Again, sometimes stopping the threat requires incapacitating the attacker. I presume that you recognize that there are proven calibers that come in a similar sized gun with similar capacity as the .22mag, right? So why would you not opt for a caliber that is more capable of killing an attacker in the event the only way to stop the threat is to kill them, no matter how unlikely you claim that is?
quote:
Again, because this point seems to not be getting across, the number one priority in armed self-defense is stopping the threat. Not incapacitation and not killing.
Again, sometimes stopping the threat requires incapacitating the attacker. I presume that you recognize that there are proven calibers that come in a similar sized gun with similar capacity as the .22mag, right? So why would you not opt for a caliber that is more capable of killing an attacker in the event the only way to stop the threat is to kill them, no matter how unlikely you claim that is?
Posted on 1/26/17 at 7:19 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
I specifically said the Kahr and the Kel-Tec - this is an LCR and a Kahr CM9 side-by-side:
That is not an LCR or an LCP. I think it's a Taurus.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 7:38 pm to Clames
quote:
the number one priority in armed self-defense is stopping the threat. Not incapacitation and not killing.
You keep saying this, but it's only half of the story.
And what happens when 'stopping the threat' fails without incapacitation? In that case (which is exactly what a CCer should be prepared for), is a 22mag as lethal as a 9mm? In your opinion.
I feel like I'm arguing with rickdaddy on the rant.
Posted on 1/26/17 at 7:48 pm to Clames
Nothing personal, but you really seem to be big on "book learning." And don't get me wrong -- book learning is fine. (I probably have more books in my library on armed self defense and gunshot wounds than most).
But "real world learning" means a whole lot more to me than some theoretical internet concepts. While I don't claim to have any medical training, I have trained under arguably the most respected, most experienced self-defense handgun instructors on this planet. A partial listing includes Clint Smith (Thunder Ranch), Massad Ayoob, Tom Givens (Rangemaster), Andy Stanford OPS), Jerry Miculek and John Farnam. (My total formal training thus far is slightly over 350 hours).
All of these folks would agree that (a) handgun reliability handgun and (b) shot placement are far more important than make of gun and "9 vs. 40." BUT, not a single one of these guys carries a .22, and not one of them would ever recommend this to anyone capable of handling a larger caliber handgun (i.e. absent a medical condition that renders them incapable of handling a service caliber weapon).
All of them will tell you, should you choose to take a class from them, that all commonly carried handguns (.38, 9mm, .40 and .45) are puny compared to rifles and shotguns. We don't carry handguns because they are great weapons -- we carry them because we can conceal them. But we acknowledge that they have real limitations in terms of their ability to incapacitate an attacker. So we choose to not handicap ourselves further by carrying mouse guns.
Obviously you have studied this topic. Obviously you are intelligent. And I suspect, since you carry a 9mm Glock, that some of your "academic" arguments are being put forth to encourage people to reexamine their opinions.
But with all that said, you're simply off-base to claim: "A threat doesn't care what you are shooting at them, they only care that they are being shot at. In that regard, .22 Mag is equal to any other firearm." If that threat is mentally ill, or is under the influence of powerful narcotics, or wants to impress his peers in a street gang, that .22 Mag is a far less potent/efficient/effective weapon than a service caliber handgun - because under those circumstances you're not gonna scare them. You'll need to stop them.
There's a reason why you can't cite a single LE agency, or a single military unit, that routinely arms its troops with .22's. Maybe you're smarter and more experienced than they are. Maybe you're a better shot than they are. But absent proof to the contrary, I'm going with "conventional wisdom" that's based on a 150 years of men stopping men with firearms. I
But "real world learning" means a whole lot more to me than some theoretical internet concepts. While I don't claim to have any medical training, I have trained under arguably the most respected, most experienced self-defense handgun instructors on this planet. A partial listing includes Clint Smith (Thunder Ranch), Massad Ayoob, Tom Givens (Rangemaster), Andy Stanford OPS), Jerry Miculek and John Farnam. (My total formal training thus far is slightly over 350 hours).
All of these folks would agree that (a) handgun reliability handgun and (b) shot placement are far more important than make of gun and "9 vs. 40." BUT, not a single one of these guys carries a .22, and not one of them would ever recommend this to anyone capable of handling a larger caliber handgun (i.e. absent a medical condition that renders them incapable of handling a service caliber weapon).
All of them will tell you, should you choose to take a class from them, that all commonly carried handguns (.38, 9mm, .40 and .45) are puny compared to rifles and shotguns. We don't carry handguns because they are great weapons -- we carry them because we can conceal them. But we acknowledge that they have real limitations in terms of their ability to incapacitate an attacker. So we choose to not handicap ourselves further by carrying mouse guns.
Obviously you have studied this topic. Obviously you are intelligent. And I suspect, since you carry a 9mm Glock, that some of your "academic" arguments are being put forth to encourage people to reexamine their opinions.
But with all that said, you're simply off-base to claim: "A threat doesn't care what you are shooting at them, they only care that they are being shot at. In that regard, .22 Mag is equal to any other firearm." If that threat is mentally ill, or is under the influence of powerful narcotics, or wants to impress his peers in a street gang, that .22 Mag is a far less potent/efficient/effective weapon than a service caliber handgun - because under those circumstances you're not gonna scare them. You'll need to stop them.
There's a reason why you can't cite a single LE agency, or a single military unit, that routinely arms its troops with .22's. Maybe you're smarter and more experienced than they are. Maybe you're a better shot than they are. But absent proof to the contrary, I'm going with "conventional wisdom" that's based on a 150 years of men stopping men with firearms. I
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News